Many debunkers have jumped on the bandwagon to criticize Dan Brown's fictional novel The Da Vinci Code. The latest critic is Philip Gardiner, author of The Shining Ones, The Serpent Grail, and Gnosis: The Secret of Solomon's Temple Revealed. Gardiner claims that Brown's novel suggests that the Holy Grail is not the cup used by Christ at the Last Supper, but actually the blood line of Jesus.
Brown claims that this is wrong and that the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (on which The Da Vinci Code is modeled but according to a recent court decision not plagiarized) based their story on the misinterpretation of the phrase Sang Real. The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail suggest the term could mean royal or holy blood. Brown insists the correct meaning of the term was and still is Holy Grail and that this was proven by etymologist Sir Walter Skeat, over one hundred years ago.
It is this claim that forms the story's core, i.e. that the royal bloodline of Jesus actually survived the crucifixion that leads to murder, cover-ups and conspiracies at the highest levels of the Roman Church. Brown hints that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were actually married and she being pregnant carried the royal seed to France.
Gardiner goes on to criticize the Priory of Sion and dismisses hints about femininity and the Knights Templar hidden in Leonardo da Vinci's paintings.
Sang Real: Royal Blood or Holy Grail
But are these the true messages intertwined in the pages of The Da Vinci Code and of Holy Blood, Holy Grail? I suggest they are not. It doesn't matter if the Priory of Sion is authentic or not. Some group of individuals through membership or fraternity has kept the secret that the royal blood of Jesus, David and Adam has continued throughout history and to present day.
What is of importance is that this bloodline is a roadmap back through time that can teach us about our history, belief systems and origins.
This is why the Roman Church is so afraid of this novel and movie. Even a person with rudimentary knowledge of the Old Testament realizes that Genesis outlines the genealogy of Adam, his children continuing through the centuries to King David. Jesus we learn in the New Testament was of the bloodline of David. What we are not told is that this bloodline was passed on from generation to generation through the matrilineal blood of the women of the family.
In Jesus' case his mother Mary carried the matrilineal blood and so did Mary Magdalene. Her surname of Magdala referred to a castle, and she was born of noble lineage and parents, which were descended of the lineage of kings. Her father was named Cyrus, and her mother Eucharis. She with her brother Lazarus and her sister Martha, possessed the castle of Magdalo, which is two miles from Nazareth and Bethany.1 They were all descendents of King David and the Davidic bloodline. Regardless of the fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or not, the bloodline would have continued because Jesus' mother Mary had many other children, both males and females.
The importance of this bloodline is clearly outlined in the New Testament because it states that Jesus was anointed by Mary Magdalene who used very expensive oil known as "genuine nard". This oil, the oil of King David, was only used for anointing priests and kings. Therefore Mary was announcing the Jesus was a king, the anointed one! It is also of interest to note that in Messianic tradition a king could not be a king without being anointed by his bride.
Now, if Jesus was the hereditary king of the Jews, a direct descendant of King David, the Romans definitely had a genuine threat on their hands. The Roman Church has taught and only disseminated doctrine stating that Jesus was not an actual king and didn't want to establish a Jewish homeland, but rather was primarily concerned with the establishing a kingdom in heaven. Pontius Pilot was not concerned about any heavenly kingdom, his only concern was keeping the Jews under control in Judea. When the placard was nailed to the cross inscribed with the words "King of the Jews", it may not have been a mocking jest but a declaration of fact. It should also be noted that crucifixion was only used by the Romans as capital punishment for slaves and the worst criminals. And scourging (being struck with a whip attached with steel implements) was not traditionally used by Roman soldiers before crucifixion signifying genuine hatred for the condemned.
Why would the knowledge of the continuation of the Davidic bloodline so frighten the Roman Church?
The answer is simple and is as old as humanity itself - power.
Prior to the formation of the Roman Church inheritors of the Royal Bloodline were unanimously accepted by people, either common or gentry. Even the Church recognized the importance of the heritage of the royal bloodline, in establishing and maintaining the foundation of civilization, but only as it determined kingship and hereditary title to land and property.
Consider that if kingship and priesthood were passed on through the ages from mother to daughter, and if this heir was recognizable and accepted by all why would the world need the Roman Church. The public could receive its spiritual guidance and earthly leadership from God's direct descendant on earth.
This problem was first addressed by the Roman Church when an obscure document, alleged to have been written by Constantine, was unearthed around 750-800 A.D. Known as the Donation of Constantine, it granted the pope sole sovereignty over Western Europe, making all kings nothing more than tenants of the pope's land.
The Donation of Constantine
The Donation of Constantine only came to prominence when Charles Martel died in 741. Charles Martel was one of most heroic figures in French history. He led the French army against the Moorish invasion of France at the Battle of Tours-Poitiers in 732. This battle looms large in our Western history.
Charles Martel's son Pepin III, who was the Mayor of the Palace to King Childeric III, who was the last Merovingian king, petitioned the Church to support his bid for the crown.
According to the "Donation of Constantine" the bishop of Rome now had the authority, through Constantine, to not only be the supreme spiritual authority over Christendom, but also became the supreme secular power in Christendom. In other words, the bishop of Rome, the pope became a papal emperor, with the power to choose and then anoint kings! Anointing of a king became little more than a symbolic gesture of conferring divine grace upon a ruler. Indeed, now Holy oil replaced the sangrail.
Interestedly, the coronation of Pepin III was the beginning of one of the most powerful families in Europe and led directly to the Carolingian dynasty. Most people believe that Charles the Great - Charlemagne - was the genesis of the Carolingians, but the actual founder was Charles Martel.
The Church pledged itself to the Merovingian bloodline in 496. The Merovingian bloodline can be traced back to the family of Jesus. The Merovingians kings, by their right as carriers of the royal bloodline, passed kingship from generation to generation, and were truly servants of their people. By right of its bloodline, the Merovingians became the biggest threat to the Church. It was only the Donation of Constantine that allowed the Church to betray its recognition of the true royal blood. In trade for loyalty and recognition of the Church, the Merovingians were promised perpetual allegiance and it was this allegiance that they broke when they allowed Pepin III to be crowned king.
This coronation (more appropriately, a "usurpation) came about as a result of the murder of the Merovingian "God-king," Dagobert II (Le Deuxieme) who had rebelled against the dictates of Rome and claimed both temporal power and spiritual authority through the Royal Bloodline coursing in his veins, refusing to acknowledge Rome and the Pope as self-appointed "King-makers." The whole story of the assassination of Dagobert Le Deuxieme is told in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and is an integral part of the legend of "The Holy Grail."
Later, to insure the Royal Bloodline lineage, Charlemagne was married to a Merovingian princess in order to insure the transmission of the Royal Blood through him and, thereby, through intermarriage to all the Royal Blood lines of Europe.
This significant detail may be what gave rise (and some validity) to the concept of "The Divine Right of Kings," by which claim royal lineages ruled Europe uninterrupted until the devastation and destruction of the European system of rule by "monarchies" was brought to an end by the events of WW I. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russian, during WWI marked the end of "divine Right of Kings" in Russia by the near extermination of the Romanov Royal Bloodline upon the murder of the Czar and his family by the Bolsheviks.2
All of these new found powers that the Church now proclaimed were as a result of the destruction of the royal bloodline. Equally important to the continuation and management of the Roman Church was to treat women as second class citizens. Women in the early Christian Churches give sermons and gave witness to Jesus and his teachings. By eliminating the role of the bloodline the Church diminished the importance of women and femininity and could now promote its male only agenda.
Leonardo Da Vinci and the Priory of Sion
It may be just coincidence but there are numerous examples of the feminine in Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings. So it really doesn't matter if Da Vinci really was a grandmaster of the Priory of Sion, because it does seem that he deliberately left clues pointing to the feminine. Other experts find evidence of pregnancy, the womb and the geometric representation of fertility in his works: The Last Supper, Adoration of the Magi and others. Also, very interesting, if not conclusive, is the fact that Leonard painted Templar Knights in some of his paintings. What relevance this has to the story is unknown.
Did you notice the painting in the top right of this article? It is entitled Magdalene with Night Light and was painted by Georges de La Tour, a French artist, approximately 1630-35. Note the apparent pregnancy of the Magdalene, also see the crucifix lying flat across the table. It is another coincidence that La Tour was rumored to a member of Priory of Sion.
The First Man and Priest-King
The first priest king was Adam. His name is derived from Adama which means of the earth. This is the genesis of the royal blood or holy blood. Adam was the first modern man. This is a universally accepted truth by all religious faiths.
"The creative energy was bound to be deeply involved and immersed in blood", states Carlos Suares in The Cipher of Genesis.3
The Qabbalah insists on the significance of the name Adam: "dam" in Hebrew means "blood." Within it is the hidden Aleph.4
All this is easy to understand when one knows that all life is two lives and Adam is Aleph inside the blood."5
The only question now is how did Adam become the first human being on earth? Paleoanthropologists and archaeologists have uncovered evidence of Neanderthal man and he is nothing like us. Are we related directly to Homo erectus and where did he come from?
The biblical story of the Garden of Eden suggests that God made man from the clay of the earth. Qabbalistic interpreted, through the association of "dam" with "blood," "Adam" may also be considered to mean "Man of Red Clay" or "Red Earth." Others believe that the Nephilim of the Bible after mating with human woman created an entirely new species often referred to in history and mythology as demigods or semi gods.
Still others believe that another race called the Anunnaki altered the original DNA of Homo erectus and created modern man.
The Anunnaki believed that by appointing human rulers they could assure mankind's service to them as gods and communicate their teachings and laws. These kings would wear a tiara or crown, hold a scepter and a shepherd's crook. The crook symbolized that the king would Shepard, care for, his subjects.
Roman Church Editors of the Bible
Over the last hundred years many biblical texts, including the Dead Sea scrolls, have been discovered. Many of these books are not included in the Old or New testaments of the bible. These books were known and well read in the centuries following the death of Jesus, including the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of James, Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Hermes.
Many of these books tell either a new story, a different story or offer a different opinion of a story in the bible. Remember that when the First Council of Nicaea was held in 325 A.D. the Roman Church clerics were compiling a book of scripture that reinforced their singularly narrow view of Christianity. This view had to be easy to understand and to teach. Equally, it could not be ambiguous and left to interpretation. It would be the role of the Church to establish doctrine, including the personalities and teachings of Jesus and his disciples.
The Knights Templar
Many believe that the order of the Knights Templar was established solely for the purpose of looting Solomon's Temple. This theory is controversial and is not accepted by Philip Gardiner. But recently I watched a program that stated that the Knights Templar were actually the descendants of Jews massacred by the Romans in the second rebellion of 132-135 A.D. This led to the destruction of the second temple of Solomon and the denial of entry of the Jews to Jerusalem.
These knights apparently had knowledge passed down for a thousand years of where the treasure of Solomon was buried. I don't know if they found knowledge, the Holy Grail or a great treasure, but it was certainly was worth the risk because in only a few generations they became the wealthiest order in the Roman Church.
In the beginning of Gardiner's article he asks the question, "for whom does the grail serve?" In conclusion to this article I will give him and you the answer; the grail serves the king, because the king and the land are one! It is ironic that regardless of what side of the argument you are on the Holy Grail and the Holy Blood support the king and the bloodline. And that is exactly why The Da Vinci Code is important - it causes debate.
1.Legenda Aurea (published in Genoa in 1275) crystalinks.com
2. Baignent, M., Leigh, R., Lincoln, H., "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." Published by Delacorte Press, 1 Dag Hammarsjold Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10017
3. Suares, Carlo, "The Cipher of Genesis." English translation published by Robinson & Watkins, London, American Publication by Shamballah Publications, published 1970. Bantam Edition published April 1973. Quotations above are from the Bantam Edition.
4. Abid (p. 15)
5. Abid (p. 17)